Evidence Learning Questions - Set 2 Flashcards
Character evidence is admissible in a civil case if __________.
A
the evidence is in the form of reputation or opinion only
B
character is directly in issue
C
the defendant “opens the door” by introducing evidence of his good character
D
it is offered to show a good character trait only
B
Where character is directly in issue in a civil case, character evidence is admissible.
A defendant in a criminal case may “open the door” by introducing evidence of his own good character to show his innocence, thus allowing the prosecution to rebut with evidence of his bad character. However, this rule does not apply to civil cases.
Where character evidence is allowed in a civil case (i.e., when character is directly at issue), under the Federal Rules, any of the types of character evidence (reputation, opinion, or specific acts) may be used.
Character evidence is admissible in a civil case if it is directly in issue, regardless of whether it is offered to show a good character trait or a bad character trait.
Which of the following is a civil claim where character evidence may be admissible because character is “directly in issue?”
A
Battery claim, to show that defendant is violent and likely liable.
B
Negligent hiring claim, to show that the person hired by the defendant is unstable.
C
Breach of contract claim, to show that defendant is untrustworthy and likely to have breached the contract.
D
Product liability claim, to show that defendant is careless and likely liable.
B
When a person’s character itself is at issue in the case, character evidence is not only admissible, but indeed is the best method of proving the issue. Character is said to be at issue in a civil case when proof of a person’s character, as a matter of substantive law, is an essential element of a claim or defense. For example, when a defendant in a negligent hiring case is alleged to have hired an unstable employee, the character of the employee is indeed at issue in the case. Defamation cases are another example of where character is at issue (e.g., defendant may use character evidence as part of her affirmative defense that she spoke the truth when she called plaintiff a thief). However, these types of situations are rare.
In a typical breach of contract, battery, or product liability case, the character of the parties is not directly at issue. Such circumstantial use of prior behavior patterns for the purpose of drawing the inference that, at the time and place in question, the actor probably acted in accord with her prior behavior pattern is not permitted in civil cases.
In a civil case, when character is directly in issue, that character may be proved by evidence in the form of:
A
Opinion only
B
Reputation, opinion, or specific acts
C
Reputation and opinion only
D
Specific acts only
B
When proof of a person’s character, as a matter of substantive law, is an essential element of a claim or defense in a civil action, it is said that character is “directly in issue.” Although character is rarely an essential issue in a civil case, character evidence is admissible in such circumstances. Under the Federal Rules, any of the types of evidence ( reputation, opinion, or specific acts) may be used to prove character when character is directly in issue.
Which of the following is character evidence, rather than habit evidence?
A
“Ben goes to church every Sunday.”
B
“Ben is always in a hurry.”
C
“Ben always wears his seatbelt.”
D
“Ben goes to the pub every Friday night at 7 p.m.”
B
“Ben is always in a hurry” is an example of character evidence because it describes a general character trait of Ben, rather than his regular response to a specific set of circumstances.
“Ben always wears his seatbelt,” “Ben goes to church every Sunday,” and “Ben goes to the pub every Friday night at 7 p.m.” are all examples of habit evidence. Habit evidence concerns a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances. Character evidence describes one’s disposition with respect to general traits.
A plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident when her car was hit by a pickup truck driven by the defendant. At trial of her personal injury action, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road in excess of the posted speed limit. The defendant denies these allegations and denies liability for the accident. The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant has a reputation in the community for being a daredevil and for being somewhat irresponsible. In fact, the plaintiff’s witness would testify that the defendant is known by all his friends as “the Menace.”
Is the proffered testimony admissible?
A Yes, because reputation evidence is a proper method of proving character.
B Yes, because it is relevant.
C No, it is inadmissible to show that the defendant was negligent on this occasion.
D No, because the defendant did not introduce evidence of his reputation for carefulness.
C
The testimony of the plaintiff’s witness should not be admitted to show that the defendant was negligent. Character evidence as proof of conduct in the litigated event is not admissible in a civil case unless character is directly in issue (e.g., in a defamation action). Character is not directly in issue here, and so (A) and (D) are incorrect. The defendant in a criminal, but not a civil, case can introduce evidence of good character, which can then be rebutted. (B) is incorrect because, although such evidence is clearly relevant, courts exclude this evidence because its slight probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the possible distraction of the jury from the main question in issue, and the possible waste of time required by examination of collateral issues.
A pedestrian sued the driver of a car that hit him, alleging that the driver ran a stop sign. The driver denies this, maintaining that the pedestrian carelessly darted into the street. At trial, the pedestrian calls her husband to testify for her. The husband offers testimony that the pedestrian invariably looks both ways before crossing a street. The driver objects to the admission of this evidence.
How should the court rule on the driver’s objection?
A Sustained, because there is no evidence to corroborate the husband’s testimony.
B Sustained, because it seeks to prove conduct in conformity with the character evidence.
C Overruled, because the pedestrian’s character is in issue.
D Overruled, because it tends to establish the pedestrian’s habit.
D
The driver’s objection should be overruled. The husband’s testimony is a classic example of evidence regarding habit—it is a regular response (looking both ways) to a regular set of circumstances (crossing a street). The pedestrian’s habit is relevant to the issue of whether she was at fault in the accident. (A) is wrong because neither the Federal Rules nor the prevailing common law requires the corroboration of habit evidence. (B) and (C) are wrong because the testimony is evidence of habit, not character. Furthermore, this is not the type of civil case where character is directly in issue (e.g., defamation or negligent hiring cases).
While a driver was driving someone else’s car, he hit a plaintiff who was walking in a pedestrian right-of-way. The plaintiff sued both the driver and the owner of the car, alleging that the driver had negligently driven the car and that the owner had negligently permitted an unfit driver to use her car. At trial, the plaintiff calls his first witness. The witness testifies that within the last several months he is aware of three instances in which the driver has engaged in reckless driving. Both the driver and the owner object to the admission of this evidence.
How should the court rule on the objection?
A Sustained, because the driver’s character is not in issue.
B Sustained, because specific evidence of misconduct is not admissible to establish evidence of character.
C Overruled as to the case against the owner, but sustained as to the case against the driver.
D Overruled, because the evidence goes to the issue of the driver’s criminal negligence.
C
The witness’s testimony of three instances of reckless driving by the driver would be considered character evidence. Character evidence is not admissible in a civil case if offered to show that a party probably acted in conformity with that character. Character evidence is admissible in a civil case when the character of a person is an issue in the case. The plaintiff is suing the owner on a negligent entrustment theory, and thus the driver’s character as a safe driver is in issue in the case against the owner, but not in the case against the driver himself. (A) is wrong; as stated, the driver’s character is in issue in determining whether the owner was negligent. (B) is wrong because specific instances of conduct may be used to prove character when character is an issue in the case. [Fed. R. Evid. 405(B)] (D) is wrong because this is not a criminal case.
In its lead editorial in the Sunday edition, a suburban daily newspaper characterized a real estate developer as a “common thief.” The developer promptly filed suit against the newspaper for defamation. During the course of the presentation of the plaintiff’s case, he sought to put a witness on the stand who is prepared to testify that the plaintiff once saved the life of a fellow soldier in combat.
If the newspaper’s lawyer objects, should the court rule that the testimony is admissible?
A Yes, because the plaintiff has a right to introduce evidence of his good character.
B Yes, because the plaintiff’s character has been brought into question by the editorial.
C No, because the witness’s testimony is not probative of any material issue.
D No, because specific instances of conduct are not admissible to prove character.
C
The witness’s testimony is inadmissible because it is not probative of a material issue (i.e., whether the plaintiff is a thief). Relevant evidence tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue. Here, the testimony tends to prove that the plaintiff is brave and selfless, but it is not relevant as to the fact in issue, which is whether he is honest. (A) is incorrect because character evidence is admissible in a civil suit only when, as here, proof of a person’s character, as a matter of substantive law, is an essential element of a claim or defense. However, even when character is in issue, the evidence must be relevant to the particular character trait in issue; here, it is not relevant to the issue of the plaintiff being a thief. (B) is incorrect for the same reason; to be admissible, the evidence must be relevant. (D) is incorrect because proof of specific instances of a person’s conduct is admissible when character is directly in issue. [Fed. R. Evid. 405(b)]
